breakingbadfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Lightdrawer
Welcome Hi, welcome to Breaking Bad Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Marie Schrader page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Wikia (Talk) 21:48, September 26, 2011 Writings : My point is that we want to keep as many fans editing as possible. Blue Rook 18:24, October 1, 2011 (UTC) : ATTENTION WIKISPHERE : This Lightdrawer character : puts stuff there spelled "funny" and phrases a few of his more pressing ideas rapidly so they will be considered, and edited, either by the wikisphere, or himself once inspiration is present and accessible. He is totally rewriting some of these characters! How'z he doin' amigos?not.Lightdrawer 15:51, October 2, 2011 (UTC) : I'll say this, he ain't much for punctuation. '' : :: I have to agree with Blue Rook. After I updated Gaff's article significantly, you made over a dozen edits that added only a few relevant details but otherwise rewrote my contribution's writing style into something that I objectively found unenjoyable to read. Examples would be renaming Gaff's title from assassin to "buttonman". I have to admit, I was unfamiliar with the term, and I imagine most readers would be too. After doing a quick search on it, the most common definition I came across was essentially a low-level muscle who worked for the mafia or some other crime organization. I would hardly call Gaff a "low-level" "muscle" or "thug". Gaff was entrusted to represent the Cartel after all. There are other examples, but I can't help feel all the editing was to essentially destroy the writing style and feel to the article, not add to it. ::If you want to make edits, be mature about it, otherwise I'll keep reverting it back. Phrozo 04:02, October 5, 2011 (UTC) Don't let's get all pushy. Lightdrawer 19:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Frank Nitty was Capones buttonman, it means chief enforcer and killer plain and simple. I have yet to see Gaff assasinate anybody, and he does travel with thugs. Assasination, look that up too.Lightdrawer 19:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC) Spoilers My two cents: It's important that the introduction of an article summarizes the subject, which does sometimes result in spoilers appearing right at the top. And editors tend to write from an hindsight point of view ("X died" becomes "X seemingly died" when X reappears in the latest episode). I get what you're saying. It's just that isn't the way things are usually done on this kind of wiki. Teleputer 18:27, October 18, 2011 (UTC) OK, then what is the point of a character description if it changes (instead of growing) every episode? Just look at Gus now, totally useless and uninformative to any viewer who hasn't seen the conclusion. I disagree very strongly with this method of destruction, all these edits and deletions after the finale only serve to destroy what was very useful insight into the real Gus. If it were relegated further down the page( in the seasonal blow by blow ) it would follow the same logic as the series itself, now there are only around 4 lines of description for this character that has not even been confirmed dead! This is not very useful to anyone except those who want to look clever about their contributions. And to the last point, this kind of wiki has never encountered this kind of show so maybe a new way would enhance the overall informative purpose Lightdrawer 19:31, October 19, 2011 (UTC) :I don't think those edits were made due to Gus's death. Re: "... now there are only around 4 lines of description for this character ...". :The top section of the page isn't the place for a detailed description of the character. It's an introduction to a character, and it should be very brief. The changes made to that section were done to bring the page into that form. It looks like most of the content was moved to the "Character History" right below it. Teleputer 20:53, October 19, 2011 (UTC) :OK, fair enough, and I agree that this format is better, but still, why are we using the past (deceased) tense in the top bits? Seems that says it all and no more spoiling is necessary, it is spoiled right off the get. At the rate these people are dying, why ruin the surprise not to mention generate a bunch of makework by frittering around with: has and had, is and was, etc. And what about the fight that is coming between myself and what looks like the rest of the contributors when I change his status to unknown. One is not dead just because the radio reports it, one is only dead when the coroner says so. Gus, whom straightened his tie before he keeled over obviously did not have his brain scrambled by the blast concussion (thermite is not a high explosive) and I personally know vets that have more head missing and are somehow still alive. I think that the time for assumptions is through, don't you? Like the way everybody assumed he ''has a wife and kids, ("kids won't eat it" - his fish stew) big assumption, little information. :Anyhow I appreciate your attention on this matter and I'll play it your way, but not without question. You do good work.Lightdrawer 01:50, October 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Thanks, everything is up for discussion on a wiki. I think that part of spoilers being acceptable is that they can appear anywhere. ::Regarding whether Gus is truly dead: I feel it's reasonable to assume that he's dead based on his wounds and the radio report. However, until season 5 begins it might be preferable to say "Unknown (reported dead)" or similar. This is like Ted Beneke's current status (I originally updated it to say "Unknown", then hours later it was changed to "Dead", now it says "Unknown (presumed dead)"). ::Regarding the character list: Do you mean the link at the top of the page? Try it now... I corrected the link format. Teleputer 03:39, October 20, 2011 (UTC) ::It's not simply an issue of spoilers, and I suppose you're right about their random nature; you won't know it's there till you read it after all. However the updating of a characers essential info and background to past tense seems awfully silly and sic contrerre. Lightdrawer 06:57, October 22, 2011 (UTC)